--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "eric dupree"
<dupreeconsults@...> wrote:
"One man/grown person one vote.
Well, one person, one _ballot_. That is, no voter has more power
or "weight" than any other voter. With Range Voting, all voters have
the same number of ballots - ONE.
And besides being a common sense concept (although it's commonly
misinterpretted, as you seem to have done here) I don't know where
that specific phrase is mentioned anywhere in our constitution. It
just sounds like a traditional saying to me.
See: http://rangevoting.org/Faq.html
I missed Rank voting enactment. Although I'll benefit greatly in a
single election, with funding issues lessened
How are funding issues "lessened" with IRV? Maybe you are talking
about removing the primary, in which case Range Voting does this too,
but doesn't botch the job.
I don't completely understand ranked choice other than it's cheaper
as it encourages perspective voters to study a range of candidates.
Baloney. Read http://RangeVoting.org/IRV.html
"Election expense will certainly increase by using IRV rather than
voting systems which can use present-day plurality-type voting
machines not connected together via a computer network. It may be
that the cost "decrease" they had in mind was versus plurality with a
second runoff election. It is true that a single IRV election is
cheaper than two elections (original plus runoff), if all other
things are equal, which is the point of the word "instant." However,
because most places that require runoff elections only need them
rarely, the expense ratio on average is not anywhere near 2-to-1, and
hence the expense of switching to IRV would usually exceed the
savings for a long time (and considering the need to continually
replace machines, perhaps forever)."
Maybe candidates' expenses will drop a little, but certaintly not as
much as they will by using Range Voting, since it eliminates the
favorite betrayal incentive.
See: http://rangevoting.org/RL2parties.html#cash
Newsomecomer in big trouble numerous candidates takes his votes.
Same thing happens with IRV, since it is strategically forced for
voters to vote for their favorite among the perceived front-runners
so as not to split/waste the vote. Hence all IRV-using countries
have experienced two-party duopoly (or closer to monopoly) in their
IRV posts. Ironically, most of the 27 countries that use the
traditional top-two runoff have escaped that duopoly.
See: http://RangeVoting.org/HonestRunoff.html
The point is, once voters have been using IRV for a few elections,
they start to wise up, and mostly know better than to waste their
vote by voting for a long shot candidate, so there is no "nursery
effect" like there is with Range Voting. Fledgling
candidates/parties never really get to mature - and two party
domination sets in. Maybe in the bay area, the two parties would end
up being the Greens and Democrats, with democrats moving economically
right to effectively take the place of the Republicans. But in any
case, two-party domination inevitalby sets in after awhile.
Clay